Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics, and Training' started by Trunk Monkey, Nov 15, 2020.
That bears repeating.
An acquaintance, a state police officer (this is in the past) asked me to examine his concealed carry revolver. The revolver in question a Colt snub nose 38Spl. I removed the grips which reviled the problem immediately lint was packed in such abundance that the V-Spring was inhibited from proper operation. So I asked how often do you qualify with this revolver? I can not remember his answer but it must not have been that often. Thus it would appear the officers training in part was not adequate.
This is nothing new and will continue. As tax dollars shrink in big cities, less and less will be spent on training, in particular weapons training. And even the smaller agencies in affluent areas don't have the time and resources to adequately train Patrol officers. It is entirely up to the individual to get training on his own.
The magic talisman syndrome is not limited to just civilians.
The whole police training issue is complex. Even some small, small departments have superb training, while some larger departments get their officers out to the range twice a year only to give them several opportunities to achieve a minimum score on a (generally basic) qual course incorporating minimum movement, maybe a couple reloads, and probably at least, if not more than, half the shots (on a fifty round course) within 15 yards.
What I would caution the members here about, is to never assume that the law enforcement officers are either less well-trained than you, or better-trained than you are. Size of an agency often has little to do with the quality of its training. Standards for its instructor cadre is a huge factor. And every department has someone (or two or more) instructors who should never have been picked up as instructors.
Beyond the quality of the individual instructors, though (and that does make a huge difference if you've got committed guys and gals who want everyone to get better, not just shoot up to a minimum qual score), curriculum and resources are key. Some agencies get what they need and don't, for example, skimp on supplying training ammo or limit how frequently firearms qualifications should occur). Some agencies, for whatever reason, have the most basic use of deadly force and firearms training requirement policies, while other agencies reach out to nationally-known instructors and training resources -- and these are the agencies that have complete, well-written, sound, policy and modern, challenging and productive firearms training curriculum.
Some of us get rightfully indignant when Joe Average Concealed Carrier states on the internet that he knows he's way better trained than all the cops in his city (because we can be confident in the quality and frequency of our own training). I see a lot of folks come on the forums and claim they can out shoot all their local cops; I know that I had the privilege of working for a department where I would have stacked up any of our officers up against every one of the members of our local gun club.
But, conversely some of us work for employers where we have concerns about our own people who are allowed to carry firearms in public. And you guys all know that in this era of "diversity hires" and "inclusivity," we are hiring recent graduates of liberal institutions of higher learning (up here, it's Evergreen State College, the local socialist mecca of learning) who don't know or care a whit about the use of force aspect of law enforcement. Guess what kind of cops we're getting?
And I can tell you all that right now, training has been severely limited or curtailed entirely during this pandemic.
There's just a lot of issues here. I guess my point is, it's fairly useless to compare the citizen concealed-carrier to any law enforcement officer, too many variables on the LE side.
Your entire post is about not judging a book by its cover and then make the assumption police officers with 4 year degrees are tree hugging rubes.
Hardly. I was speaking to the state of law enforcement training throughout the country, a topic with which I have some familiarity.
It is true, however, that a very different "type" of personality is now being actively recruited by mostly large, urban metro departments, going through the academies, and becoming law enforcement officers. Take for example, a large Northwestern metro PD, that used to recruit job fairs on military bases, targeting those leaving active duty, but now is more likely to have a recruiting booth at the city's "Pride Event" and on the campus of a certain noted liberal college.
Not saying diversity in law enforcement is a problem, so don't assume that from my posts, either -- but coupled with the current patterns shown by city councils and county commissions to "restructure" their law enforcement agencies (and their funding), we can draw some conclusions. We shall see how the dynamics of policing evolve through this trend... over the next twenty years or so.
My bottom line, law enforcement formerly used to be able to get applicants who had some familiarity with firearms use, some who'd actually been in a fist-fight a time or two in their lives... Now, the up-coming generations don't have these life experiences or skills, rather growing up in a more liberal, far less physically-challenging environment. Then you folks on the outside are incredulous when you seen horrific examples of bad policing on the 6 O'clock News.
Separate names with a comma.